On January 10th, executives from more than twenty major American oil companies held an undisclosed consultation at the White House, discussing the development of Venezuela's oil resources. The public initially thought this would be a lively investment negotiation, but the outcome was quite surprising—almost no one was willing to put real money into it.

The most dramatic moment occurred on-site. When decision-makers reiterated that they would provide "military support" to safeguard the interests of U.S. companies, a petroleum company executive bluntly responded, "Unless Venezuela has a legitimate government, we will not consider investing." After saying this, the room fell into awkward silence.

It sounds absurd, but the logic behind it is clear. Venezuela indeed possesses the world's largest oil reserves—about 3 trillion barrels. The problem is that the country's oil industry has been battered by sanctions, aging infrastructure, technological gaps, and management chaos. Even if someone wants to rescue the situation, restoring production would cost billions of dollars and take three to five years to see results.

More critically, there are risks. In the current chaotic situation with uncertain regime transitions, any investment could result in total loss—assets nationalized, contracts torn up, and even personnel safety unguaranteed. The U.S. military's promise of "support"? That's what they say, but in reality, it’s impossible to station troops long-term for commercial projects. If conflicts escalate or political changes occur, companies will suffer losses with no compensation.

The lessons of history are right in front of us. Chevron operated in Venezuela for years, but after being nationalized in 2007 by an order, they still haven't fully recouped their investment. This past lesson has made today’s energy giants more cautious— even with government backing, they weigh whether it’s worth it. This might be the most ironic setback in the Trump White House’s plan.